Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202106499)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106499

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

26 May 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries regarding the service charge and standard of services provided.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 February 2021 as they had not received a partial refund for their service charge and management fee, due to the reduced service received in 2020. They said the grass had not been cut between March and July 2020, the caretaking services had been reduced and staff visits had been suspended. They said as a result, there had been increased issues with rubbish dumping, pest control and parking that they thought should be covered by the management fee. In the complaint escalation, the resident remained concerned about the standard of the caretaking service provided and steps being taken to address the parking issue. They also requested a “full itemised schedule” of works covered by the service charge.
4. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it said that:
   1. It had refunded the yearly grass cutting charge for 2020/21 as a gesture of goodwill, and it had capped the overall service charge for 2021/22 at the 2020 level.
   2. Caretaking services had continued which included normal weekly litter collection, bin rooms, fly tipping as well as essential tasks such as fire safety checks and removal of hazards. Cleaners continued to remove spillages and clean touch points in and around blocks. The communal area cleaning service was reduced within the block during 2020 but this would not have impacted on service delivery to the resident as they had a separate access to their property.
   3. Cleaning and caretaking were carried out once a week. The schedule was displayed on the outside of the block for all residents to view and was monitored by the landlord. Under normal circumstances it cut the grass on average every four weeks between April and October, and carried out periodic weed control plus any identified “winter works”. If the resident required any further detail on these schedules then they were able to contact the customer services department.
   4. The resident had advised that household waste had been dumped outside of bin rooms and had not been dealt with by the caretakers. Caretakers were only responsible for rubbish inside of the bin rooms, but as part of their duties they reported fly-tipping to the relevant service area.
   5. It agreed that cars were often parked inappropriately and it was reviewing the matter to see what could be done to improve the situation. Residents would be consulted accordingly.
5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, they said that the landlord had failed to provide the information they had requested regarding the services provided and had failed to clarify how much the caretaking service had been reduced by. The resident also said that they could not find evidence of the noticeboards referenced in the landlord’s complaint response.

Assessment and findings

6. The resident has raised further issues with this Service, that were not included in their original complaint, including the handling of ASB reports and the landlord incorrectly addressing them in correspondence. This Service can only consider complaints once they have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. As no evidence has been provided to show that these matters have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, this Service is unable to consider these matters at this stage. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to these matters, then they should raise a formal complaint with the landlord in the first instance. 
7. The landlord accepts that the grass cutting service was not completed between March and July 2020 and took appropriate steps to address this by refunding the yearly grass cutting charge. It also explained the typical schedule of service for the grass cutting, as it outlined that the grass would be cut on average every four weeks during the summer months, and therefore it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations in this regard.
8. The landlord said that the caretaking service had been provided and that cleaning had been carried out although this had been reduced in the communal areas. The landlord has provided this Service with copies of the cleaning logs for the period May 2020-March 2021, signed and dated by the cleaners. However, the logs do not cover the entire year, and it appears that some weeks in August 2020, February and March 2021 were missed. Furthermore, it is unclear if the logs include the works undertaken as part of the caretaking service. Therefore, the landlord has not been able to provide adequate evidence to show that the caretaking and cleaning services were provided in line with the schedule and hence that it was reasonable not to agree to a partial refund of the associated service charge.
9. Furthermore, in response to the resident’s concerns about the level of cleaning, the landlord advised that the resident would not have been impacted by the reduced level of communal cleaning as they had a separate access to their property. Regardless of the landlord’s perception of whether the reduction in services would impact the resident, the resident paid for the cleaning under the service charge and as such should be entitled to a refund if any aspect of the cleaning service was not provided for which they had paid for. The resident raised this very concern in his stage two complaint but the landlord failed to address this adequately in its response.
10. In its complaint responses the landlord confirmed how frequently the caretaker and cleaner were scheduled to attend the block and provided some details of the services that were carried out by the caretaker. However, it did not provide the same level of detail for the cleaning services as it advised that the resident could view the schedule on a noticeboard outside of the block. The resident has since advised the landlord they have been unable to locate the noticeboard and none of the adjacent blocks have a cleaning schedule displayed. Given that it is reasonable to assume that the cleaners work to a service specification, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord was unable to provide this information as part of its complaint response. Therefore, it failed to provide adequate information in this regard.
11. In response to the resident’s concerns about the dumping of household rubbish outside bin stores, the landlord explained that fly-tipping was not dealt with by the caretakers, as they were only responsible for rubbish inside the bin store. It did not explain which area of service was responsible for the issue and the service standards it worked to. It therefore remains unclear how frequently fly-tipping should be attended to and which part of the service charge covers the issue. Furthermore, the landlord stated that it had not received any reports about this matter but the evidence provided by the resident shows that they reported this on several occasions during 2020. This indicates therefore that either the landlord did not adequately investigate the complaint or that it failed to keep adequate records relating to this matter.
12. In relation to the ongoing parking issue, the landlord said that it was looking to make improvements to the parking areas and would complete a site visit when possible. Correspondence provided by the resident shows that the landlord had committed in 2020 to doing this once the lockdown restrictions were lifted. The resident has also said that this issue has been ongoing for 10 years. It is therefore understandable that the resident has raised concerns about how long this process is taking. While there is nothing to suggest that the landlord is obliged to make improvements to the parking arrangements, it should keep the resident adequately updated on this matter having committed to doing so, and a recommendation has been made as set out below.
13. In conclusion, there were several service failures by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s queries about the service charge. While the landlord refunded the grass cutting charge and has not increased the service charge for the year 2021/22, it is not considered that this is adequate redress for the service failures identified. Orders have been made to put this right, as detailed below. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where there is evidence of service failure that has impacted the resident, including a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses”. The landlord failed to provide adequate information about the service charge and to properly engage with several of the substantive issues raised by the resident. As a result, this has necessitated additional time and effort by the resident in pursuing the complaint. In light of this, it would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation.

Determination

14. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s queries about the service charge.

Orders and recommendations

15. The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s queries about the service charge.
    2. Provide the resident with the service schedule/specification for each service they are charged for. It should also confirm which service area is responsible for managing fly-tipping/dumping of rubbish in communal areas and the expected timeframe for the removal of such rubbish.
16. It is recommended that the landlord does the following within the next four weeks:
    1. Provides an update to the resident on the parking issue including the actions it will be taking to address this matter and the associated timescales.
    2. Reviews its record keeping practices to ensure that it properly records all communication with its residents.